In the background of the Tonkin
crisis in 1964, this article exposed the capitulationist policy of the
revisionist Soviet leadership under Khrushchev vis-a-vis the policy of piracy
pursued by the US imperialists who took full advantage of the thermonuclear war
phobia of the revisionists.

On the order of
President Johnson of America, the US naval forces, on the 4th August last, sank
two torpedo boats which belonged to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. On the
next day, many jet planes taking off from the US Seventh Fleet, violated the air
space of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, strafed and bombed a number of
places in Vinh-Ben Thuy area in the Gianh river mouth and close to Hong Gai
town, causing huge destruction of its shore installations and loss of lives
there. Of course, there is nothing new in the violation of the air space and
bombing of the territories of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam by the USA. In
the past, too, the US aggressors had done it. A few days before the aggression
of 4th August, the US imperialists had strafed and bombed Nam Can and Noong De,
two areas in the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam bordering Laos.
Besides, the USA had despatched warships which illegally intruded into the
territorial waters and strafed Hon Ngu and Hon Me Islands and other places in
the coastal areas of North Vietnam. But the latest acts of aggression in August
last by the USA, have no parallel. By these acts the USA violated all canons of
international law and civilization and endangered the sovereignty and
independence of the weaker nations, peace in Asia in particular and world peace
in general. It is for this reason that the anti-imperialist and peace-loving
forces and individuals all over the world cannot but raise their voice of
protest against American imperialism and unite to oust it from the South-East
Asian countries. We, on behalf of the Indian people, strongly condemn the US
aggression on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and support the just stand
taken by the latter in this regard.

The US story

The US aggressors, with a posture of injured innocence, have made the plea that while
some of the ships of the US naval units in the Pacific were patrolling the
international waters of the Gulf of Tonkin some North Vietnamese patrol boats
attacked them; as a retaliatory measure the US warships were ordered by
President Johnson "to attack and destroy any forces that attack them" and the
jet planes belonging to the US Seventh Fleet strafed and bombed the coastal
areas of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

How far believable is this story ? Anyone having a modicum of grey matter in his head
finds this cooked up story extremely difficult to swallow. For, even a child
understands that to try to destroy a part of the US Seventh Fleet, perhaps the
most powerful imperialist fleet in the world, with the help of a few small
patrol boats is the height of madness and idiocy. Do not the rulers of the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam who have established their political sagacity,
matured power of cool judgement even in the face of the gravest imperialist
provocation, and revolutionary realism before the world, understand what even a
child understands ? Why then should they indulge in the adventurist act of
attacking the US warships with a few tiny patrol boats ? The story of attack on
the US warships by the North Vietnamese patrol boats in the Gulf of Tonkin, as
made out by the Pentagon, is a cock and bull story unworthy of credence.

The world public also have taken the US story with a grain of salt. Prince Sihanouk, Head of the
Cambodian State, rejected the US story as a blatant lie. A large section of the
Western press, not excluding the American press, reacted in a similar manner.
The reaction of the 92-year old British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, is
indicative of the general feeling about the US stand on the Vietnamese question.
Lord Russell is no advocate of communism. On the contrary, he considers himself
an arch enemy of the communist ideas and the international communist movement.
All through his life, he has used his powerful pen, as fiercely and ably as he
could against communism. Even such an anti-communist personality could not help
condemning the USA for its aggressive policy in Vietnam. In a letter published
in The Times, he wrote: "The National Liberation Front has a
non-communist majority and a programme of neutrality. The United States
maintains the only foreign troops in Vietnam, refuses elections provided by the
Geneva Agreements, has placed nearly eight million people in barbed wire camps
with machine-gun turrets and patrolled by dogs, conducted 50,000 air attacks on
the villages in 1962 alone, razed the country with chemicals and napalm, killed
1,60,000, maimed 7,00,000 and imprisoned 3,50,000. The South Vietnamese
Government and army are American puppets financed by 15,00,000 dollars daily.
When the United States ceases its war of atrocity against a popular national
movement and accepts the neutrality agreed 10 years ago, the war will end. The
United States should be condemned as an aggressor by the United Nations for its
atrocity-ridden war of annihilation in Vietnam." The aggression by the USA on
North Vietnam in August last, is a continuation of its atrocity-ridden war of
annihilation in South Vietnam.

Anyone, who has
not bartered away his conscience and intelligence to the dollar-god, will
subscribe to the above view of Russell. But a section of the Indian press and
the right-wing social democrats, represented by J. B. Kripalani and his
fellow-travellers, have accepted as gospel truth the US version of the case. In
tune with the American war-lords, they are crying themselves hoarse on the
so-called necessity of "unitedly fighting international communism" and "creating
buffer States under US leadership in South-East Asia as a measure against the
advance of communism in this part of the world". This is an open support to the
US imperialists in their attempts to crush the national liberation movements by
the peoples of the South-East Asian countries for complete national independence
and to establish American domination there for perpetuating neo-colonialist
exploitation. It is characteristic of the right-wing social democrats in the
present international situation. The Indian Government's stand on this question
is also no less pro-American. Continued dependence on American economic and
military 'aid' has been gradually pushing India out of the Asian
anti-imperialist camp and drawing it nearer to the USA and its puppet
governments in Asia. Neither Burma nor Indonesia, nor even Cambodia, the one
time closest friends of India and all of whom are still playing anti-imperialist
roles in international politics, are India's best friends now. Tunku Abdul
Rahaman of Malaysia, a protege of imperialism, is now India's only friend in
South-East Asia. The result of this increasingly pro-American attitude has been
that India has ceased to condemn even in words the acts of aggression and
intrigues by imperialist powers in South-East Asia, and in this particular case
it has aligned itself with the US line by accepting as true the US story of
North Vietnamese attack on the US warships first. This is, no doubt, an open
betrayal of the anti-imperialist aspiration of the toiling millions of our
country.

Apart from the
fact that the US plea of North Vietnamese attack on the US warships in the Gulf
of Tonkin is a tissue of blatant lies, there is no justification for what the
USA has been doing in South-East Asia since the end of the Second World War and
has done in this particular case. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument
that the US warships were outside the territorial waters of the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam, the question arises: why do the US warships appear in the
Gulf of Tonkin and patrol the shores of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam,
thousands of miles off the American shores ? The Gulf of Tonkin washes the
shores of only the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of
China, cutting deep into the territories of these two countries. What business
has the USA got to send its warships to the Gulf ? How would the USA feel and
react if the naval and air force units of a powerful foreign country, say the
USSR, appear in the Gulf of Mexico and keep on patrolling the American shores ?
Would not the USA take it as a provocation and hostile act towards it,
threatening its security ? Is it wrong then if North Vietnam and China react in
a like manner to the appearance of and patrolling by the US warships in
the Gulf of Tonkin ? Indeed, the
absolutely unjustified presence of the US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin and the
patrolling of the shores of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's
Republic of China by them cannot be considered in itself otherwise than an
openly hostile act by the USA towards these two countries, threatening their
very security. It is, therefore, the USA that is guilty of provocation to and
hostile acts against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and not the other way
round.

In their attempts to mislead the peace-loving people of different countries, the US
imperialists are loudly proclaiming their faith in peace. But do facts confirm
it ? Has the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or China or any other socialist
country ever sent any of its naval or air force units to the American shores or
surrounded America with military bases or threatened America with attack or
violated the American air space or strafed and bombed the American territories ?
No socialist country is guilty of any of these offences. It is the USA, on the
contrary, that is guilty of all of these offences. Its warships have intruded
into the territorial waters of North Vietnam; its planes have violated the air
space of China, North Vietnam and other socialist countries, including the
Soviet Union and strafed and bombed the territories of the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam; its warships patrol the shores of not only North Vietnam and China
but also the newly independent countries in Asia and Africa; it has sunk two
patrol boats belonging to North Vietnam; it has formed aggressive military blocs
like the SEATO, CENTO, NATO, etc., as means to conduct military adventure,
subversion and imperialist intrigues in Asia, Africa and Europe; it has built
innumerable military bases encircling the socialist camp to use them as
spring-board of aggression; it has been threatening Cuba since its independence,
it is now threatening North Vietnam with a massive attack, so on and so forth.
Are all these the signs of peaceful policy or do they indicate a policy of
brinkmanship, cold war, provocation, military adventurism and aggression ? It
attacked the Democratic Republic of Vietnam without being at all provoked,
carried through its premeditated plan, ravaged the coastal area of that country
and, after doing all that it wanted to, went to the UNO with an air of injured
innocence and a fabricated charge against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam of
attack on its warships.

The US move, from the beginning to the end, shows that the whole thing was pre-planned.
Quoting The Guardian, a mouthpiece of British imperialism, the Amrita
Bazar Patrika, a pro-US daily of Calcutta, wrote : "American air attacks on
North Vietnam and the great movement, now proceeding, of military power into
South-East Asia had long been planned and required only a suitable occasion".
The fact that the US attack on North Vietnam in August last was planned much
earlier exposes the mendacious character of the US plea that the act was a
retaliatory measure against North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf
of Tonkin.

US motive

There is no denying that the USA, by attacking the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a
socialist country, took a calculated risk. The risk was that the socialist camp
might have taken concrete military steps to effectively resist the wanton US
attack on a socialist country, which would have foiled the whole game of the US
imperialists and put the USA in a straitjacket. But the calculation of the USA
on the possible Soviet move was that the Soviet Union and, for that matter, the
socialist camp would not come forward to effectively retaliate for the US
aggression on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a calculation which was mainly
based on its recent experience of the Soviet stand at the time of the Cuban
crisis. Subsequent facts proved that the US calculation on the possible Soviet
move was correct. The calculation might also have proved incorrect had the CPSU
leadership not been caught by nuclear blackmailing of the USA. So, the USA
undoubtedly took a great risk in attacking a socialist country. But the point
is : why did the USA take the risk ? In other words, what was the purpose of the
USA behind this attack ?

We all know that the Presidential election in the USA is near at hand and Goldwater, the
Republican Party candidate for Presidentship, in course of his election
campaign, has held Johnson guilty of following a weak-kneed policy in South-East
Asia, especially in Vietnam, for which, in the opinion of Goldwater and his
supporters, the USA and its allies in South-East Asia are facing military
defeats, one after another, at the hands of the forces of national liberation
movement, resulting in further strengthening of the anti-imperialist forces
fighting for complete national independence and national integration and
reunification, as the case may be, in Laos and Vietnam, the falling of morale of
a section of US monopolists and the reactionary forces in South-East Asia, who
see no ray of hope of ultimate victory in the US sponsored war of annihilation
now going on in Laos and Vietnam and the lowering of US prestige in the
estimation of the world reactionary forces who look upon the USA as their
ultimate saviour against popular uprising. The more bellicose circles and the
military in the USA, as a mouthpiece of whom Goldwater and his supporters are
moving about, are demanding of Johnson and his Administration a tough policy in
South-East Asia, particularly in Vietnam and Laos. By tough policy they mean
extension of the US intervention and military operation, now limited to South
Vietnam, to North Vietnam. For success of the Democratic Party in the coming
election, Johnson has to show the US voters that his policy on South-East Asia,
especially on Vietnam, is anything but soft and weak-kneed. Had the US voters
been sufficiently conscious politically, they would have long discovered that
the Johnson Administration "had no different policy from the old imperialist
trick of sending a gunboat up the river" and attacking a foreign land in order
to perpetuate the imperialist interests of the American monopolists. But since
the majority of American voters are not politically conscious, as is the case in
all the capitalist countries, and are ignorant of the neo-colonialist and
aggressive policy which their country follows in Asia, Africa and Latin America,
both the monopolist groups, one represented by the Democratic Party of Johnson
and the other by the Republican Party of Goldwater that rule the USA by turn,
find it easy to mislead the ordinary US voters, foment war-psychosis and
continue their policy of exporting counter-revolution, provocation,
brinkmanship, war and aggression on the plea of defence of the so-called "free
world". So, the present rulers of the USA thought it expedient, in the interest
of victory in the coming election, to take some military action in South-East
Asia. However much Johnson and his Democratic Party may like to extend the war
to North Vietnam, since they are in the government, they can ill-afford to
ignore or overlook the serious consequences which may follow such an adventurist
act. The present rulers of the USA know that in Vietnam the USA is facing at
present the military might of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam
alone, and yet the result has been that this army, poorly equipped militarily,
has wrought havoc on the combined military might of the USA and its puppet, the
South Vietnam Government, and liberated three-fourths of the total area of South
Vietnam. In the circumstances, should the US imperialists extend the war to
North Vietnam, they know that they would have to face the additional military
might of not only North Vietnam but also of China — which has categorically
declared that any war with North Vietnam would be considered a war against
China and properly met —and, eventually, of the socialist camp; since, whatever
may be the ideological differences and the degree of strained relationship
between them, the socialist countries cannot but unitedly resist an all-out
aggression by the USA on another socialist country, namely the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam. Johnson and his Ministers know what the result of such war
would be. They still remember what happened in Korea. If the North Korean army
and Chinese volunteers (not regular army) alone could throw back the armies of
not only the USA but also several dozens of other imperialist-capitalist
countries into the Pacific Ocean, then the military involvement of the USA with
the socialist camp over extension of war to North Vietnam would dig the grave of
the US imperialism in South-East Asia, ensuring complete victory of national
liberation movement in the different South-East Asian countries, great
advancement of national liberation movement elsewhere and revolutionary struggle
in the metropolitan capitalist countries. The myth of superiority of the US
military might, which the USA has been able to create among a large section of
the politically unconscious masses after the Caribbean crisis because of the
incorrect stand of the Soviet Union, would be completely shattered. It would, at
the same time, wreck the morale of the world reactionary forces that count on
the US military might as the ultimate guarantee for their existence against
future popular upsurge, a morale which had sunk to the bottom at the US military
reverses in the Korean war but has gone up much after the US success in the
Caribbean crisis due to the faulty Soviet stand. So, the present rulers of the
USA cannot stake their future on the Asian soil by their adventurist act of
extending the war to North Vietnam. But something had got to be done to take the
wind out of the sail of Goldwater and his supporters and win the coming
Presidential election — this was the internal problem of Johnson and the ruling
Democratic Party.

And what is the external problem which the Johnson Administration is confronted with ? The
present rulers of the USA are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up and
sustain the fast falling morale of the reactionary pro-US forces in South-East
Asia in general and in Vietnam and Laos in particular, who are now collaborating
with the USA as anti-nationalist forces against the national liberation
movements there. For safeguarding the interests of the American monopolists,
particularly of a few US death-merchants, this fall in morale has got to be
checked and the pro-US anti-nationalist forces are to be revitalized. Because,
without doing it, the war of annihilation, which the USA is now carrying on in
South Vietnam and Laos in alliance with the reactionary forces there, cannot be
continued. And if the civil wars in these countries cannot be kept going, if
these end to the advantage of the forces fighting for complete national
independence and national re-unification or national integration, the USA would
have to leave South-East Asia for good. So, to secure American presence and
influence for perpetuating the US neo-colonial interests in South-East Asia, the
war of aggression, which it is conducting in this part of the globe, has to be
kept ablaze, for which it is essential to achieve unity between the mutually
warring Generals who rule unliberated South Vietnam and a part of Laos,
revitalize the pro-US anti-nationalist forces, check the fall in their morale
consequent upon the US military reverses at the hands of the forces fighting for
national independence and then boost their morale. But how it can be done is the
problem of the US rulers.

Besides, the USA naturally wants to know beforehand the reaction of the Soviet Union, in case it
extends the war to North Vietnam. Would the USSR, in case of an all-out US
attack on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, simply use the UNO as a forum for
condemning the attack or would it positively retaliate for the aggression on a
socialist country by suitable military action ? The reply to this question is of
paramount importance to the present rulers of the USA for the purpose of
chalking out their future course of action in Vietnam. But how to know it ? That
was also a problem to Johnson and his military advisers.

What Johnson did in the Gulf of Tonkin was aimed at solving these problems of his Administration.
Since the present rulers of the USA can ill-afford to take the risk of being
involved in a total warfare with China or the Soviet Union or the socialist camp
in South-East Asia for reasons discussed earlier, the only course left open to
them was to utilize the American superiority in naval and air force over China
and North Vietnam in South-East Asia for an extremely short-period attack on
North Vietnam not with the help of land army, as that would involve the USA in a
land-war with China which the former could not but avoid, but with naval and air
force, keeping the door of retreat and withdrawal from the field of operation
always open so as to enable the USA to retreat as and when that would be felt
necessary for the purpose of avoiding involvement in an all-out clash with China
or the socialist camp and to make a show of temporary military success as
American military supremacy to the world a large. In fact, the so-called
American superiority in naval and air force in South-East Asia would not have
remained, had the Soviet Union appeared on the scene and used its superior
military might in defence of the fraternal socialist country of North Vietnam
against the US aggression. But the US rulers banked on their experience at the
time of the Cuban crisis and assumed that the Soviet Union would not resist
militarily any such US attack on North Vietnam. This assumption proved correct
and made the USA do what it intended to by attacking the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam in utter disregard of all civilized codes and in violation of all
international laws and conventions. Thus, by taking a calculated risk, Johnson
has been able to silence Goldwater and his supporters and to demonstrate to the
US voters that he is in no way less tough or stern than the Republican Party
candidate in dealing hard blows to North Vietnam and, for that matter, to any
socialist country. Johnson has also succeeded in capitalizing on the temporary
military success and pass it off as a proof of the US power and courage to
ravage with impunity any socialist country and further create the illusion among
the politically unconscious that no socialist country, including the USSR, has
the power and courage to resist any military action which the USA may have the
pleasure to take any time it likes, and thereby also boost the falling morale of
a section of the US monopolists and the reactionary forces in South Vietnam and
Laos who are seeing more and more the futility of continuing the war in these
countries, enthuse them to carry on the war more determinedly and give a fillip
to the reactionary forces all over the world in carrying out their crusade
against peace, democracy and socialism. The present militarized economy of the
USA requires, as temporary means to tide over its crisis of over-production,
constant release and replenishment of arms and military equipment stockpiled by
it. The US death-merchants are, therefore, vitally interested in intensifying
international tension and the atmosphere of cold war and starting, wherever and
whenever possible, localized limited wars. The US attack on North Vietnam has
also served this interest of a few American death-merchants. Judged in the light
of our above-mentioned analysis, it becomes perfectly clear that the US attack
on North Vietnam did not aim at starting an all-out war with China or the Soviet
Union, far less a world war with the socialist camp. It was nothing but an
extension of the US diplomacy into the field of military operation in the form
of a wanton aggression on North Vietnam, aiming at achieving certain limited
military and political objectives.

Role of Soviet Union

Let us now see how the Soviet Union under the leadership of Khrushchev behaved, and examine if
it moved correctly. The Soviet Union did practically nothing except make a
formal protest against the US attack on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and
move the UNO. Even its move in UNO was most perfunctory. The Statesman, a
mouthpiece of British capital and a section of Indian monopolists in our
country, while commenting on the role of the USSR wrote: "The assumption of the
operation was that the Soviet Union would not respond. The Soviet performance in
the UN Security Council has been true to American expectations in its
perfunctoriness". Johnson expected that the Soviet Union would protest but would
not move to effectively retaliate. At best she might come out with typical
'Khrushchevite aid programme' of supplying certain military equipment. The
Soviet behaviour confirmed this expectation of the USA. It is because of this
that President Johnson and the Western press in general, which serves as the
watchdog of imperialism-capitalism, praised the Soviet Union for following a
"realistic policy expected of it".

How is it that `the Soviet Union behaved just according to the expectations of the US
imperialists ? We think that the revisionist line of the CPSU is solely
responsible for this weak-kneed policy of the USSR. Could not the Soviet Union
take retaliatory military measures against the USA ? What did prevent the
Khrushchev leadership from adopting such a measure if it was not its wrong
approach to major international questions largely due to its thermonuclear
war-phobia ? Otherwise, a few Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), in
which the USSR is superior to all the imperialist powers put together, would
have been sufficient for the purpose. After destroying with the help of
Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles the US warships and planes engaged in
attacking North Vietnam and putting an end to the US aggression, the Soviet
Union could go to the UNO and explain to the peoples of the whole world that it
had been forced to retaliate since the US imperialists dared attack a peaceful
socialist country in violation of all international laws and that it had no
intention of carrying on the retaliatory measures further if the imperialists
did not continue their aggression. It could hold a threat to the US aggressors
that any fresh attack on North Vietnam would be firmly resisted by suitable
military measures, and at the same time could add to the strength of the
peace-loving people to thrust peace on the imperialist warmongers. If the USSR
had taken this correct stand, what would have been the result of it ? The myth
of the US superiority in military might over the socialist camp, which the USA
has been able to create amongst the world reactionary forces because of the
wrong stand of the Soviet Union in the face of nuclear blackmailing by the USA
since the Cuban crisis, would have been exploded, as a result of which the
morale of the world reactionary forces would have fallen and their
aggressiveness, which has increased since the Cuban crisis, would have been
dampened and the recent shift in the foreign policy of some of the non-aligned
Afro-Asian countries more towards the United States reversed. Besides the
reactionary forces, there are politically unconscious men who honestly, though
wrongly, believe that the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to resist militarily
any US attack on a foreign land is not so much for the former's desire for peace
as for its military weakness. In other words, these people take the
Khrushchevite way of approach to the peace policy of the Soviet Union as a
'retreat before the tough policy and superior military might of the USA'. Had
the USSR effectively resisted the US attack by strong military measures, this
section of the ignorant masses of people would have been convinced beyond all
doubt that the desire for peace on the part of the USSR was not due to its
weakness and that notwithstanding its superior military might the Soviet Union
was a genuinely peace-loving country, as they themselves would have seen that in
spite of possessing the military might to defeat the USA, the Soviet Union had
not gone an inch further than what was militarily needed only to resist an
unjust aggression on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam by the USA. It would
have objectively demonstrated to the world that whatever may be the ideological
differences between the different communist parties and the extent of strained
relation between the different socialist countries, the imperialist powers had
no opportunity to speculate on the differences, far less to take advantage of
them and that the socialist camp would act unitedly as a monolithic unit against
any imperialist attack on any foreign land, not to speak of an attack on a
socialist country. This demonstration would have taught the US war-maniacs that
they would burn their fingers if they touched any socialist country and also
might have had a sobering effect on them. This step by the USSR would,
furthermore, have released a huge force in favour of national liberation
movement in dependent and colonial countries throughout the world, tremendously
helped the peoples in Vietnam and Laos in particular and other countries in
South-East Asia to complete their national democratic revolution and given a
fillip to the revolutionary struggles in the imperialist-capitalist countries.
The USSR would then have been hailed as the real defender of world peace and
independence of weaker nations and an active helper of the peoples in dependent
and colonial countries fighting for national independence. The USSR did not
avail itself of these opportunities opened up by the US military aggression on
North Vietnam. It merely went to the UNO to lodge just a protest and that also
perfunctorily, as per the American expectation.

We know what plea the Khrushchev leadership of the Soviet Union will advance against the
above mentioned suggestion of ours. This leadership put forward before and will,
in this case also, put forward the same argument that had the Soviet Union
retaliated, a thermonuclear war would have started between the USA and the USSR,
to the danger of which no sane man, let alone a socialist country, can remain
blind. Since the Soviet Union is against thermonuclear war and will never be the
first to start it, how could it start if the USA did not start it first ? Does
it ever occur to the Khrushchev leadership how contradictory its stand is ? On
the one had, while discussing the question of war and peace, it is saying that
in the present-day changed international situation the imperialists are
incapable of starting a war while, on the other, to defend its wrong stand on
the Cuban crisis or on the Tonkin incident, it is saying that had the Soviet
Union militarily resisted the US aggression, the imperialists would have started
a thermonuclear war.

Then again, is the reading of the Khrushchev leadership correct that had the USSR adopted firm
military measures to resist the US aggression on North Vietnam there would have
been a thermonuclear war between the USA and the USSR ? We hold that this
reading is grossly erroneous. We have already shown, while discussing the US
motive, that the US attack on North Vietnam did not aim at an all-out trial of
military strength between the USA and the USSR or China, far less a
thermonuclear war or a world war with the socialist camp. It was just an
extension of the US diplomacy into the field of military operation aiming at
achieving certain limited military and political objectives. So had the Soviet
Union destroyed with the help of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles the US
warships and planes engaged in attacking North Vietnam and effectively resisted
the US aggression on a socialist country, there would have been no largescale
and prolonged war between the USA and the USSR, not to speak of a thermonuclear
war as apprehended by the Soviet leaders. Moreover, the Soviet Union could foil
the US design and also turn the table in favour of peace, national liberation
movements in the dependent and colonial countries and revolutionary struggles in
the metropolitan capitalist countries.

But failure to study correctly the aim of this limited military adventure and other localized
and partial wars by the USA has led the Soviet leaders to be ever haunted by the
danger of a thermonuclear war between the USA and the USSR or a world war
between the imperialist camp and the socialist camp. And this unreal and
exaggerated sense of fear of a thermonuclear war or a world war on the part of
the Khrushchevite leaders is making them fall victim to the US nuclear
blackmailing and give unnecessary and unilateral concessions to the US
imperialists. This is an objective reality which no amount of revolutionary
phrase-mongering can refute. We explained in an article in February 1963 issue
of the Socialist Unity how the Soviet leaders had failed to assess
correctly the motive with which the US imperialists created the Caribbean
crisis. There also the Soviet leaders saw the danger of a thermonuclear war
leading to a world war, though there was no such danger and they gave
unnecessary and unilateral concessions to the USA. The US rulers have since then
correctly read how the mind of the Soviet leadership works and are convinced
that the USSR is not going to resist effectively by firm military measures any
such US attack or aggression on any country except the Soviet Union. This
reading has emboldened the US imperialists to constantly hold out the threat of
starting a nuclear war in case the US interferences, attacks or aggression are
militarily resisted by the USSR and, taking advantage of the Soviet passivity,
almost amounting to surrender, to carry through their policy of interference in
the domestic affairs of other countries and attack or aggression on foreign
lands through localized and partial wars in areas where American naval and air
forces are in a relatively advantageous position. The attack on North Vietnam by
the USA is the natural corollary of the correct reading by the US rulers of the
working of the mind of the Soviet leaders. The Soviet leaders should realize
that if they cannot understand correctly the US tactics of nuclear blackmailing
and get over their unreal and exaggerated fear of a world war or thermonuclear
war-phobia, the US attack on North Vietnam may not be the last one and the US
imperialists, holding a threat of a nuclear war, would continue to carry on
interference in the domestic affairs of other countries and even aggress on
them, to the detriment of national liberation movements in colonies and
semi-colonies and revolutionary struggles in imperialist-capitalist countries.
The fresh provocations which the US imperialists have started in the Gulf of
Tonkin by attacking and sinking two unknown patrol boats (as reported in the
Western press) indicates the possibility of more US adventures in South-East
Asia. Would it be correct then to characterize the Soviet stand on the US attack
on North Vietnam as an example of their struggle for "imposition of peace on the
exponents of war by the forces of peace and socialism", as claimed by the
Khrushchev leadership ? It would not be correct to do so. Because, any
imposition of peace on the exponents of war by the forces of peace and socialism
cannot but strengthen the struggle for peace, national liberation movements in
dependent and colonial countries and revolutionary battles by the workers and
other exploited masses of the peoples in the capitalist countries for socialism
by restraining the imperialist powers from indulging in adventurist acts and
interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. But has the Soviet
stand on either the Cuban crisis or the US attack on North Vietnam reduced even
by a whit the aggressiveness of the US imperialists ? It has not; rather, it has
made the bellicose circles of the USA more reckless in their adventurist
acts.

Apart from committing mistakes, one after another, on specific issues, relating to a
particular war and preservation of a particular peace due to the thermonuclear
war-phobia which has developed in their minds precisely because of their
incorrect study of the US tactics of nuclear blackmailing, the Soviet leaders
are further guilty of making an invidious distinction between the USSR and other
socialist countries. How would the Soviet Union have acted, if the USA had
launched an attack on it ? Would it have merely gone to the UNO and lodged a
formal protest against the USA and scrupulously avoided all military actions
against the aggressor, as it has done in the case of the US attack on North
Vietnam, or would it have first taken military actions against the USA as a
retaliatory measure, forced the aggressor to stop the attack and then gone to
the UNO to expose the US policy of brinkmanship, war and aggression ? We have no
doubt that the Soviet Union would certainly have taken the latter course, which
it actually took a few years back when the US plane violated its air space. The
apprehension that a retaliatory military action against the USA may lead to a
thermonuclear war or a world war, a plea now being advanced by the Soviet
leaders to defend their stand on the US attack on North Vietnam, would not have
prevented the USSR from taking retaliatory measures to put down the US attack
and aggression, had the USA attacked, bombed and strafed its own territories as
had been done in case of Democratic Republic of Vietnam, another socialist
country. Why then has an invidious distinction been made between the Soviet
Union and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the matter of taking retaliatory
measures against a wanton imperialist attack and aggression ? Is it because the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam is not the USSR, that the US aggression on it is
of no concern to the Soviet Union ? Or, is it because it is a small country
that no action need be taken ? Or, is it because the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam has generally supported the Chinese stand in the present ideological
struggle, now going on between the different communist parties, that it should
be taught a lesson by not resisting the US aggression on it ? Had the Soviet
leaders been actuated by the first two considerations, then by their behaviour
they have proved that to them the defence of the Soviet Union stands at a much
higher level than that of any other socialist country. This is a non-communist
outlook. To anyone imbued with and guided by the spirit of proletarian
internationalism, all socialist countries, big or small, stand on equal footing
and belong to the same family of socialist brotherhood. So, an attack on any
socialist country is to be considered an attack on one's own country, requiring
collective action of all the socialist countries to resist effectively and foil
the aggression. To deny it, as the Soviet leaders have denied in practice by
making an invidious distinction between two socialist countries in the matter of
resisting the US aggression, is to suffer, may be unknowingly, from reactionary
nationalism, incompatible with the spirit of proletarian internationalism. But
if the Soviet leaders have been prompted by the third consideration, that is if
they thought of teaching North Vietnam a lesson for not supporting the
ideological line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the ideological
struggle between different communist parties, by not resisting the imperialist
aggression, then the less said the better. Because, in that case the Soviet
leadership is guilty of complete betrayal of proletarian internationalism and
socialist fraternity and of an act befitting only an enemy of socialism and
communism.

Furthermore, the Khrushchevite leaders have been persistently saying that no socialist country
other than the Soviet Union need develop and possess any nuclear weapon as it
has sufficient numbers of nuclear weapons to protect all the socialist countries
from imperialist attacks and stands as the guarantor of the prestige and
defence of all the socialist countries. Though we believe that the USSR
possesses a sufficient number of nuclear armaments to protect the socialist
countries from any possible imperialist attack on them, yet we consider
incorrect the Soviet stand that no other socialist country should develop and
possess nuclear weapons. We are of the opinion that so long as the imperialists
go on developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons and until complete banning of
nuclear tests and destruction of all nuclear weapons take place, other socialist
countries, especially those who can undertake the burden to produce them, should
develop and possess nuclear weapons. Besides, has the assurance given by the
Soviet Union, judged in the context of its behaviour in regard to the US attack
on North Vietnam, any real value ? Furthermore, is the superior military might
of a socialist country to be used only as a show, or, for its own defence only,
or has it any revolutionary significance and for that matter any international
obligation to weaker nations and other socialist countries in case they are
attacked by the imperialists ? It goes without saying that a socialist country
never uses its superior military might in inflicting military defeat on a
capitalist country by first attacking it for the purpose of overthrowing
capitalism and establishing socialism there. Nor does a socialist country ever
threaten the independence or sovereignty of any other country. The idea of
export of revolution is alien to Marxism-Leninism. But should an imperialist
power attack a socialist country militarily or threaten the security and
independence of any weak nation by military intervention and aggression or try
to destroy the national liberation struggles of the peoples of dependent and
colonial countries by the force of arms, then must not the superior military
might of the socialist country be applied effectively to thwart these
imperialist machinations ? The changed international situation of today has
given the opportunity to and imposed the responsibility on the socialist camp of
foiling such adventurist acts by the imperialists and thrusting peace on them.
Not to do it means to refuse to carry out the historic task the socialist camp
is called upon to perform.

So, by remaining a silent spectator, when the US warships and planes were engaged in a savage
attack on a socialist country, the Soviet Union miserably failed to discharge
its duty as the leader of the socialist camp. Not only this, the USSR has also
failed to move correctly in the United Nations. Apart from the half-heartedness
and perfunctoriness of the Soviet move in the UNO, how could the Soviet
representative agree to the US proposal to call South Vietnam along with North
Vietnam to the United Nations ? The USA launched attack on North Vietnam — this
was the fact, though the USA brought the charge of North Vietnamese attack on
the US warships first. But in any case how does South Vietnam come into the
picture in a dispute between the USA and North Vietnam ? The USA wanted to use
the UNO as a forum for carrying on a false and vile propaganda against North
Vietnam, using South Vietnam as a cat's paw. Why would the Soviet Union
acquiesce in this US game by agreeing to call the American puppet, South
Vietnam, to the UNO ? This is not all. Not to speak of taking military actions
in order to effectively resist the US aggression on North Vietnam and correctly
moving in the UNO, the Khrushchev leadership of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union did not even organize any demonstration in its own country to
protest against the US attack on a socialist country, let alone the storm of
protest which ought to have been organized by it throughout the world. Instead
of making a serious effort to expose, isolate and corner the US imperialists in
the international arena, the Khrushchev leadership, on the contrary, most
irresponsibly made an appeal to both the parties not to indulge in provocation,
as if, somebody else but the USA has also indulged in provocation. Does not this
appeal, by implication, place the aggressor and the aggressed on a par ? When
the fact is that the US imperialists launched an attack on North Vietnam without
any provocation from the latter, what purpose does this appeal serve other than
attempting to smear the critics of the Khrushchev leadership with the false
charge of provocation to war, thereby isolating them in the world communist
forum ? Is it not treason against proletarian internationalism to place the
aggressor imperialist country and the aggressed socialist country on the same
footing ? The Soviet leaders ought to answer these questions to the satisfaction
of the communists at large.